Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Similar sounding terms.3F

I'm reading John Williams's novel Stoner, finally. A great read, indeed. In chapter 3, on page 42 of my edition (Vintage Classics) is this sentence:

• He never went into that room that he did not glance at the seat he had once occupied, and he was always slightly surprised to discover that he was not there.

I had no trouble understanding the meaning from the context. I'm sure the bolded bit means "without glancing", but I'm wondering why he didn't just say that. Three fewer words, one fewer syllable, concision and all that. I get that writers decide for themselves exactly which words and expressions they use, but I've never come across this form of words before, unless it follows a verb, e.g. "I knew that he did not glance ...". Is it attested?

(FYI. The novel is set in rural Missouri around the time of the First World War, and there's a bit of farmer-talk in the parts with dialogue, but this was the narrator speaking, so that won't be the explanation.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:You are not alone in having a problem with the construction.^{[https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/138441/cant-parse-he-never-went-that-he-did-not-glance-from-john-williams]} I think it may be due to a sloppy edit on a sentence that before went like

:* It was rare when he went into that room that he did not glance ...

: ​‑‑Lambiam 10:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Yes, I agree. But the ref you cited suggests the sentence appears in at least 2 editions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The sloppy edit could have been a late-moment revision by Williams that was not caught by his editor at the original publisher.  ​‑‑Lambiam 00:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Speaking as a British English reader (and ex-book editor), it strikes me as a correct but markedly archaic form of expression; more familiar in the (still archaic) form "but that he did not . . . " – compare the well-known Scottish heraldic motto "Touch not the cat but a glove". I would be unsurprised to see it in an 18th century work.

Although I have not read the book I gather that the protagonist, presumably the subject here, is an assistant Professor of English, so Williams might be indicating that he thinks in the terminology of older English literature, and perhaps that he is a little affected in his mannerisms. Are other turns of phrase in the book consistent with this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.81.243 (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

: Not remotely. That's why this one stood out. Thinking about it more, it seems a sort of muddled version of something like "There was never a time when he went into that room that he did not glance at the seat ...". I could imagine it being a regionalism, but the narrator otherwise speaks standard AmEng. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

= June 12 =

File:Arnold_AAF_document.jpg

What did it mean to call a light propeller aircraft a "land ship" in 1947? The compound term landship refers to much heavier vehicles, with the common property of being unable to fly. What kind of plane was a land ship?  Card Zero  (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Possibly to differentiate it from a seaplane or flying boat? The usual term would be landplane. The use of "ship" to describe an aircraft is WWII US pilots' slang, from whence we get gunship, which is, of course, not actually a ship. Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Google also found me "assembly ship". Alansplodge (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

= June 13 =

I appreciate that we have a page on Willem Usselincx, but in a perfect world, we would have translations of his writings in contemporary English, and in practice we must have guides for learning the period dialect. New Yorkers would appreciate the new insight into the history of our state and its politics. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Are you asking if one or more Wikipedia editors could translate Willem Usselincx's 16–17th-century Dutch writings (which I gather are extensive) into modern English, or 'merely' to translate the existing contemporary (to him, I presume) English translation Further reflections on the navigation, commerce and trade, and building of the state . . . (of his book Over de zee-vaert/ Coophandel ende Neeringhe alsmede de versekeringhe vanden Staet . . . (1608)) into modern English?

:Either way this would be a scholarly enterprise requiring lengthy work, and such a translation could not be hosted on Wikipedia because it would constitute Original research. It would first have to be published by a reputable publisher, after which brief quotes at most could be used here, though not by the actual translator(s) as this would constitute a Conflict of interest.

:Perhaps I have misunderstood you – can you clarify what it is you are asking about, or for? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.137.14 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::The article contains two different translations of the Dutch title of the treatise, both of dubious quality. I am not sure of what is the best translation.

::* The basic meaning of versekeringhe (present-day Dutch verzekering) is "making certain" or "making secure". Common translations are insurance and assurance, neither of which covers the most likely meaning here of "making secure", "ensuring". In any case, it does not have a sense of "(nation?) building".

::* The meaning of deser (present-day but archaic Dutch dezer) is "of these", not "of those".

::* Also, handelinghe (present-day Dutch handeling) does not mean "treaty". In present-day Dutch the meaning is "act", but in early modern Dutch it could also mean "trade". However, I suspect the meaning here is "negotation", as at the time this was published (1608) the Dutch Republic was at war with Spain, but negotiations were ongoing.

:: ​‑‑Lambiam 09:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::@94.1.137.14 @Lambiam I didn't assume that any translations of Usselincx's works, period or not, existed. If you know where I can read copies of them, please let me know. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I half-assumed it from the wording of the article, perhaps wrongly. However here (apparently) is one for sale: https://www.asquaredbooks.com/products/author/Willem%20Usselincx/~/product_genre_desc

:::{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.137.14 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This pamphlet is available on the Commons as a pdf file. It is one of dozens penned by Usselincx, with a similar pro-mercantile slant as the one discussed here, yet with a different thesis. While a translation from the original Dutch, it is not clear that it was also published in Dutch. According to the ex libris shown, the copy from which the pdf was scanned once belonged to the library of Philip Stanhope.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I read this paper for school, and it makes an interesting point:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40985573

The author argues for forgiveness as a process of character growth and self-discovery, not morality, as opposed to literally overlooking the wrongs of others, citing Freud, Nietzsche, and even the Resurrection. While not the common use of the work "forgive", I want to ask the reference desk if they see it as worth mentioning. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:This would be a matter for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia: they are two quite separate projects.

:And what do you mean by 'distinguishing between them'? Wictionary has entirely distinct entries for each word. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.137.14 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:: As to the first point, I see no reason it wouldn't be appropriate to ask questions here with the intent of improving Wiktionary. After all, we answer questions here just for general knowledge, with no requirement that it be used for improving Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

: I don't understand your reference to the Resurrection. That was an event that is believed by Christians to have happened. I don't see how that connects to "literally overlooking the wrongs of others".

: But on that last point, I've never understood forgiveness to be about diminishing what the other party has done. What's done is done and can't be undone. Rather, it's about the "victim" changing their attitude to the perpetrator, from hatred or a desire for revenge to acceptance and love. It's founded on the fundamental difference between who a person is and what a person does. That's why I've long believed that there's no such thing as an evil person. Or a good person, for that matter. People can and do do evil things, and the law must take its course, and the people are accountable for their actions. But, as A. J. Muste wisely said: "If I can't love Hitler, I can't love at all". Nothing in that statement says that what he perpetrated was OK. But if the doctrine of distinguishing people from their actions applies at all, we can't make an exception for special cases. The Christian version of this tenet is usually phrased as "Hate the sin but love the sinner". That's not easy, particularly when you have been personally affected. But Christians are enjoined to do it anyway. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out: "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you Jack. I should clarify that in this paper, the author argues that Jesus' forgiveness of humanity's sins allows him to transcend death, which ultimately makes it an act of self-improvement, not sacrifice, for Christians to follow. It's a re-interpretation of an article of faith. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If I succeed in forgiving all the world's sins, can I expect to self-improve to the level that I transcend death? And is that worth the effort?  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The conventional meaning of "forgive" is to pardon or excuse. The idea that it doesn't imply to pardon or excuse and only means self-improvement from no longer letting someone's actions get you down seems to be very modern, and not supported by any dictionary I've checked. (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/forgive gives the older meanings first, with the "cease to feel resentment" meaning fourth in the list. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forgive and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forgive give the "cease resentment" meaning first, but also include "pardon" as an alternative or synonym. https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=forgive naturally only gives the older meaning).

:::And the traditional Christian doctrine of God forgiving sins is definitely about pardoning. The standard idea is that we are all sinners and therefore deserve eternal punishment (or at least don't deserve Heaven), but God in His mercy will let us off (assuming we genuinely repent). The idea that God forgiving our sins only means that He will no longer let it get Him down, and have no bearing on whether we are punished for them would be odd to say the least.

:::And the idea that salvation is about following Jesus's good example looks like a variety of the Pelagian Heresy. Iapetus (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Dictionaries define words by looking at how they are used out in the wild, not what people said they should mean. Nardog (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

= June 16 =

I need the ISO 639 code or IETF language tag for Hanja, as I was trying to make a redirect with {{tl|R from alternative language}} but I couldn't fill in the first parameter with this language. The Wikipedia article says it's "Han", but when I put that in, I previewed it and it said Hangaza. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 07:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

: "Han" for Hanja isn't a language code but a script code, which can be affixed to an ISO 639 language code as part of an IETF language tag. Thus I think the correct IETF tag for Korean written in Hanja would be "ko-Hani" (that's what our wiki pages use for text marked up with {{Korean|hanja=…}}). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Okay, thanks for the help. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 09:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I regularly watch motor racing with commentary in Brazilian Portugese – which I do not speak – because it's what I can access.

Quite regularly, when one car overtakes another around a bend or curve, the commentators seem to refer to the manoeuvre by what sounds like the name "Charlie Benson". I cannot find anyone with this name on the internet who seems relevant.

Can anyone tell me what is actually being said, and what it means? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.137.14 (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Can you locate a video? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I assume the -son part could be the ending -ção, which is equal to the English -tion and similar Latin-derived endings in other European languages. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hence, I throw out a wild guess for intervenção, where at least the final part fits... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Or part of a phrase ending on prevenção, such as audaciosa prevenção.  ​‑‑Lambiam 02:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Or just televisão maybe?  Card Zero  (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rTiTgAAosI Here's] the relevant video of the most recent race: the racing actually starts at 13:35, and the first usage is at 14:04 –there are (from memory) a couple of dozen more throughout the race.

::I'm not convinced by any of the suggestions so far. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.100.112 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Possibly "tchau e bênção", an informal expression for "goodbye"? (Hint: the Youtube video has an auto-transcribed transcript that you can read. The expression is evidently mistranscribed in most places where it occurs in the transcript, but the "tchau e" is rendered like that fairly regularly). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks, Fut.Perf. – that makes a good deal of sense.

::::I'm still going to retain a headcanon where Charlie Benson was a bygone Brazilian racing driver famous for his overtakes!

::::I'm also amused that the name of the well-known American driver Graham Rahal ["Ray-Hall"] (participant in the linked race) always has his name pronounced "Graaam Hey-How" by most Brazilian commentators :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195. 94.11.213.205 (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I wasn't familiar with "bênção" (although my actual Portuguese knowledge is fairly limited), but apparently it means benediction, blessing... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::"Benison", even.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

= June 17 =

I once saw a cartoon in Swedish where one guy asks another "Vill du åka tunnelbanan?" The second panel showed them riding a giant banana in a tunnel with one guy saying "Skittrevligt".

Now I am not a native Swedish speaker but I understand Swedish to a very good degree. I understood that the first guy was asking an ambiguous question "Do you want to ride the subway?" ("Tunnel-track") or "Do you want to ride the tunnel-banana?" and the second panel said something like "Damn cool". I assume the difference between the words "banan" (as in the definite form of bana, "track") and "banan" (as in "banana") is lost in writing but the first word is pronounced banan while the second form is pronounced banan.

Now my question is, strictly speaking, which of these is grammatically correct? The subway version, the banana version, both, or neither? JIP | Talk 20:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:The bestämd form of banan is bananen, so "The tunnel banana" would be "tunnelbananen". So "Vill du åka tunnelbanan?" means either "Do you want to ride the subway?" OR "Do you want to ride tunnel-banana". I did find a Swedish lady [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bg6nNUdoUo4 warning people not to say tunnel-banana]. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I wonder if anyone in the Swedish subway industry has suggested decorating the trains to play off of this. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::The lame pun can be applied to many things: the runway (startbanan for take-off, landningsbanan for landing), the tennis court (tennisbanan), the golf course (golfbanan), the racing track (racingbanan), the shooting range (skjutbanan), the roadway (vägbanan or körbanan), the slide (rutschbanan), and so on ad nauseam.  ​‑‑Lambiam 00:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Link? By the way, "tunnelbanan" is in definite tense ("the subway"), so it comes off as a bit forced to begin with. I find the indefinite variant "tunnelbana" ("a) subway") a bit more natural in this context. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::For links, try Wiktionary (startbanan etc.)  ​‑‑Lambiam 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, I meant a link to the Swedish cartoon, not the words referenced... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

= June 21 =

Do English speakers ever think that it is n when the hour number is n? This means that for example, it is "three" at 3:59? I have always thought so. I think that there are 24 "hours", numbered from 0 to 23, in each day, and each hour follows the hour number. -- 40bus

:If it's 3:59, I would say it's "almost four", not "three". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::It would go from :00 to :59. I think that it is three from 3:00 to 3:59 and "twenty-two" from 21:00 to 21:59. In Finnish, whole hours are read as nollanolla. For example, 5:00 is viisi nollanolla. 0:00 to 0:59 is read as nolla + minutes. Do English speakers read them as zero? And do English speakers ever use time ranges in 24-hour as like 7-21, if they can write them as 7:00-21:00, 7 am - 9 pm or 7:00 am - 9:00 pm? --40bus (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In English, generally you're trying to approximate the nearest hour. Saying "it's three" when in reality it's nearly four would be misleading. Also, "three from 3:00 to 3:59 and 'twenty-two' from 21:00 to 21:59" is inconsistent. If you're going to use the preceding hour, 21:00 to 21:59 would be 'twenty-one', not 'twenty-two'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

: Context matters. Generally I'd say "It's almost four o'clock", but if I wanted to convey that there was still a little time before a 4pm deadline I'd say "It's three fifty-nine" or "It's a minute to four". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::In British English, we only say the unadorned number in casual speech, only do so for one to twelve (whether am or pm is understood from context), and only use it to refer to the 'on the hour' time. So we might say:

::"It's nearly three" at, say, 02:56–9 or 13:56–9;

::"It's three" or It's just on three" at 02:59–03:00 or 14:59–15:00;

::"It's just gone three" at 03:01–4 or 15:01–4; and

::"It's at three" referring to the time of a future event (like a football match kick-off) as being at 15:00.

::We would never say "Zero" for 00:00, (in the military we might say "Oh-hundred hours") but rather "Midnight", and in other times with a '0' in them we usually say "Oh". And we would not use 24-hour ranges (rare, anyway) without specifying the full numbers, so "Oh-seven hundred to twenty-one hundred, never "Seven to twenty-one" which would be completely alien.

::As you have been told before, in everyday speech people use the 12-hour clock; digital 24-hour times shown on watches and clocks are in speech unconsciously translated to 12-hour times. 24-hour times are generally only spoken in a military, transportation (e.g. bus and train times) or scientific context.

::{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.41.216 (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I have grown using 24-hour and digital clocks and when I was younger, I wondered why analog clocks have only 12 hours and why they don't have 24 hours too. And are there any equivalent of [number][am/pm] + noun in 24-hour clock? For example: a 3pm football match - a 15 football match? In Finnish, a time around a whole hour is kello + number, and it can be used with both 24- and 12- hour clock, such as kello viidentoista ottelu. --40bus (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Tradition. See 12-hour clock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also [https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/dreckly-parking-machine-functions-cornish-5622023 Cornish time]. The minute hand seems mostly decorative.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:No, but there is evidence that we do something similar with prices, where $3,999 means something more than simply a dollar cheaper than $4,000. See psychological pricing. Although money may equal time, we apparently don't take quite the same approach with its values. Matt Deres (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

= June 22 =